I still don't get why there aren't enough monitor panels that are 5K so they can fit with Macintosh's retina standard. What ends up happening is the scaling is done at an incorrect multiple so the dpi causes text to be blurry and not clear.
I guess will have to stick with my LG Ultrafine for another year.
90% of desktop users use an OS which supports DPI scaling and doesn't have this problem. The remaining 10% have intentionally chosen to buy a computer where ordinary peripherals like monitors or mice don't quite work right by design, and instead have to remain within an "ecosystem" of products primarily from the same vendor.
In other words - Macintosh's "retina standard" is the issue. Use a computer which is fit for purpose.
Until recently, you had to make trade-offs between physical dimensions, pixel density, and refresh rate. Almost nobody prioritized pixel density. But now DisplayPort and HDMI have enough bandwidth that you can have 120 Hz 5k/6k displays, so maybe resolutions higher than 4k will finally become common.
I use a similar monitor to this and I don’t notice the difference between 4K+ at 28” and the Retina display on my MacBook. The difference between the 4K and a 27” QHD that I sometimes use at work is quite noticeable.
if someone is looking for monitor, i can recommend the LG 28MQ780 [0], its 2x 2560x1440 stack on top of each other (2560x2880 in total), giving you 16:18 aspect ratio. i'm using one of these in portrait right and it's fantastic for coding.
The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen.
The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen.
Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice.
It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.
This is probably what you mean, but I wasn't sure and then did the math: and if you take two 3:4s and put them side by side (as is being contemplated with 16:9 being split into two 8:9 panels) you get 6:4 aka 3:2 (so, this monitor).
Frankly, though, while I probably agree for "reading", with my "coding" I'm very happy taking 16:10 (which is a pretty standard monitor size and I want to say is much more common than 16:9, at least on laptops) and splitting it into two 8:10s (which is itself a pretty familiar aspect ratio).
The 3:2 aspect ratio gives you more vertical space than a 16:9 ratio or similar. The good-for-coders idea is that you can see more "pages" of code without scrolling, but also without meaningfully decreasing the length of lines you can see, since it's still plenty wide.
The Framework 13" laptop has a 3:2 screen. After almost 2 years using it, I... kinda like it? I think I would agree that I can see more code per screen. But on the occasion when I'm using another laptop, with a more standard 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it feels more "normal" somehow.
It’s 3:2, which historically people said it’s “better” for coding because it allows more vertical space.
Personally I find bigger monitor available today is more than enough vertically. Horizontal space is actually quite useful to be able to put things side by side.
> Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously.
I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]).
Right on my cusp, I still remember salivating for one of those straight from the Jetsons 4:3 LCDs (1997? 9? Only 9/11, so I may have been seeing them late / out of context).
First 16:9 was probably 2006...got the first ever MacBook Pro as my graduation gift
It informed some conception I had of the iPad as a platonic ideal (first 4:3 monitor in years)
Not sure if 3:2 aspect ratio is really optimized for programmers, but it might be something well appreciated by photographers since a lot of cameras (digital and film) use 3:2 aspect ratio.
I have a similar monitor at work. I find my adhd deals better with a single, wider monitor than with multiple monitors.
That said, as I type, my keystrokes make the monitor shake. This is visibly irritating and I still haven't solved this issue. Looking at this monitor I'd sadly expect the same to happen.
Looks like they’re using the same panels as the Huawei Mateview. Only these ones are VESA mountable. 3:2 at such high resolution, for me is a great experience. I’ll maybe grab one for my work desk to run vertically as I can’t do the same with the Mateview
Obviously only an issue for Americans, but the Huawei Mateview isn't widely available due to the ban on Huawei products. It could be imported grey-market, but only at slightly inflated prices and without any warranty protection.
The BenQ monitor will be commercially available in the US.
4k@120hz is pretty common now. I recently got an LG UltraGear. I can drive it with a usb-c to DP cable with my MBP M1. Not that expensive. Great text clarity. Personally, I enjoy the higher refresh rate when coding.
I would definitely appreciate the extra vertical space but I wish it was 32 inches. I don’t know if many people can comfortably use the native resolution with 100% scaling on a 28 inch screen.
Looks good but 10 kg/23 lbs? I see a Samsung IPS for <8 kg. 50" 4K Fire TV for 9.3 kg. I guess we don't really move monitors around once we start using them, esp if mounted, so perhaps a non-issue.
I personally prefer ultra wide monitors for coding, can have split windows for multiple files, web browser, terminal, etc. I don't know why people like 3:2.
All of the ultrawides I've looked at have poor text clarity. That's one of the things this monitor boasts, but there's no real measurement for text clarity. RTings.com is the only site I know of that has a measurement for it.
I guess will have to stick with my LG Ultrafine for another year.